From the NY Times article:

What adds a layer to this fairly familiar neighborhood tension between longtime, mostly black residents and wealthier, mostly white, newcomers is a sort of role reversal for Mr. Butler and the Flea’s fans. They fancy themselves protectors of so-called Brownstone Brooklyn, defending their adopted homelands of Fort Greene and Clinton, Cobble and Boerum Hills from rampant, insensitive gentrification. So it is disorienting, to say the least, to be cast as the local villains ruining a neighborhood.

Oh, so the wealthier, mostly white newcomers like Butler and the Flea folks represent what - rampant but sensitive gentrification? This made me laugh aloud. You can fancy yourself defenders of "Brownstone Brooklyn" all you want, but face facts - you're defenders of Whitestone Brooklyn if anything. There's nothing Brown about the Brooklyn that you're so invested in. If you think that introducing a weekly influx of mostly white folks - even the "down," "sensitive" types like yourselves - into a Black community is the way to stop gentrification, you're deluding yourselves.

As for the article, frankly I wish it had focused more on the non-church-related issues. There we apparently other upset neighbors at the meeting; I'd like to know what they had to say.

Posted by: boricua jack at July 26, 2008 10:59 AM in response to Closing Bell: Brooklyn Flea + Urban Arts Festival

Polemicist, why do you have such a deep love for bashing FUREE? What have they done to you? Can't help but think that you doth protest too much - that you're so infuriated by FUREE's message and work because they're pointing out inequalities that benefit you, and somewhere deep down inside you know it's true.

Anyhow, on the topic at hand - it'll be a horrible day for NYC if Catsimatidis gets elected. How can someone who seriously hopes to put himself forth as a candidate for mayor so cavalierly dismiss a question about wages and helping people afford housing? "Well, as of right now that's not my department as far as wages"? This guy wants to be mayor in 2009. Exactly when will all city residents' financial well being (as opposed to rich developers' well being) become his department? Oh, that's right - probably never.

Posted by: boricua jack at July 17, 2008 11:52 AM in response to John Catsimatidis: Tough Guy For Tough Times

I lived in Windsor Terrace for a while and loved the neighborhood for what it was. I never went into Farrell's, which didn't seem likely to be a friendly place for my queer Puerto Rican woman self. However, I'd rather see it be the only bar on that strip than see Windsor Terrace start getting the LES treatment. Maybe one new bar like this one won't have a tremendous affect on the character of the neighborhood, which had a small-town, almost suburban feel that I actually really liked. But trendy hipster establishments tend to beget more trendy hipster establishments, so we'll see.

Posted by: boricua jack at May 29, 2008 12:29 PM in response to StreetLevel: Windsor Terrace Getting a Little LES Love

5:53 - I find it odd that, despite agreeing with The Mighty Q's sentiments, you choose to criticize his expression of those sentiments instead of criticizing the poison that provoked his response.

Posted by: boricua jack at May 8, 2008 6:34 PM in response to Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds

5:17 - "Unfortunately, nothing I wrote is BS. Tell me ONE THING I wrote that is untrue."

This is the thing. It's not about whether the facts you wrote there are true or not. It's the framework from which you're looking at the facts, the value judgments, assumptions and prejudices that you're linking to the facts.

You took some facts about these women's lives straight from the FUREE website, but you put a completely different framework around those facts, one that's riddled with prejudice. YOU think that being on public assistance, not having a college education, or having a large family are shameful or otherwise negative things; YOU are putting that spin on them because of your own prejudices.

When FUREE posted these women's stories on the website, they didn't lay all that shame and blame and prejudice on them like you did. Instead, they were demonstrating that, despite the difficulties that these women face and the odds stacked against them because of things like racism, classism, and sexism, they are strong, capable, powerful women who are fighting against those odds - not only for themselves, but for other mothers and other people who are struggling. And they're doing that while also raising their families.

See how framework and perspective and prejudice change things? By asserting that people's fates are entirely their responsibility and that their difficulties are therefore their own fault, you're choosing to ignore or deny that racism and classism materially affect people's lives and ability to succeed financially.

So, while the facts that you lifted from FUREE's website are true, I'm indeed going to call the assumptions and judgments you draw from those facts b.s., just as I call all racist and classist bile b.s. And yes, denying the existence and effects of racism and classism is racist and classist in and of itself.

"I say the black and hispanic communities have much bigger problems that FUREE could be holding marches about."

And you've certainly demonstrated how qualified you are to dictate the priorities of Black and Latino people (i.e., not qualified in the least. The opposite of qualified, in fact.)

Posted by: boricua jack at May 8, 2008 6:31 PM in response to Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds

4:28 - If FUREE and other organizations were actually focusing all of their energy on "keeping out private investment and white people," I might agree with you that those energies were displaced. But they're not. A look at FUREE's website reveals that the Downtown Brooklyn campaign, while a major and important part of FUREE's work, is still just a part of the larger work that FUREE does to reach its goals of racial and economic equality and justice. Additionally, the Downtown Brooklyn campaign isn't about "keeping out private investment and white people," it's about stopping the market forces of which you speak from sweeping away services and stores that are important to entire communities simply because those communities don't have as much spending power as others might.

"It's probably easier to achieve economic parity between the races than to supress market forces and keep white people from moving to certain neighborhoods... Seems to me that more progress has already been made on the latter, and it also seems to me that minorities, if given the choice, would rather be part of economic advancement rather than just keeping it out of their neighborhoods."

Of course the ultimate goal is true economic justice and equality for people of all races. However, FUREE and other organizations and movements have been struggling to achieve that goal for quite some time now, and while progress has definitely been made, there's still a long, long way to go. The problem with the market forces of which you speak is that capitalism doesn't want everyone to be equal; in fact, capitalism couldn't survive that way. For the maximum profit of the few on the top, many people need to be on the bottom holding them up. Throw racism into the mix and the people on the bottom are disproportionately people of color. (See the comment at 4:46 for a good response on that note.)

Posted by: boricua jack at May 8, 2008 5:31 PM in response to Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds

4:35,

Whoa. That's deep. You're trashing women you don't even know by name with some typical classist, racist AND sexist b.s. in an astounding triple play of privilege and prejudice. You clearly have no concept of decency.

Posted by: boricua jack at May 8, 2008 4:53 PM in response to Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds

3:33 - "If the members of FUREE would spend as much time getting jobs as they do complaining, maybe they wouldn't be on public assistance (as most of them are)."

Wow, that's some classic classism right there. Can't you come up with something more original than blaming low-income folks for their plight or making it seem like they're less deserving than people with more money? I bet that many of the people who you're slandering right there are just as "hardworking" as those folks you mention from Brooklyn Heights or Boerum Hill, if not more so. Also willing to bet that most of them are more decent than you.

3:44 - "Apparently, they want Brooklyn to remain a shopping zone for low income blacks only, to the exclusion of other Brooklynites."

You can twist it that way if you'd like, or you can see this for what it is: a community trying to protect one of the few thriving commercial districts that actually gives them products they want and need at prices they can afford, instead of being pushed out and away by stores and residences that cater to the affluent.

3:56 - People aren't fighting gentrification because they want segregation. Mixed-income and mixed-race communities that are created without pushing low-income people of color out of their homes and communities is just fine. It's the pushing out of people, communities and cultures to make room for the monied and the privileged that's the problem. How long do you think these neighborhoods are going to be mixed-income and mixed-race when rents skyrocket and services and stores become financially inaccessible? Somehow I bet folks won't be complaining about clinging to segregation when the inevitable tide of white faces sweeps in.

Posted by: boricua jack at May 8, 2008 4:14 PM in response to Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds